dennis99ss

did not mean to imply that the medical exam was faulty, etc. Just indicating that summer camp is as stressful on the adults as the boys, and with the extreme conditions we had at btsr, with the altitude, heat, and walking, this could happen to anyone. just that the camp itself is open to causing changes in one's condition, and proper medicals and adherence to them is a good thing and should be encouraged. Again, no implication intended with regards this man or camp.

http://www.kiiitv.com/story/15063295/beloved-father-boy-scout-leader-passes-away

Some of our group saw this and the life flight helicopter on the way back across texas.

if any good comes out of this, maybe it can be used to encourage the medical checks, and camps to adhere to them, and, second, at least he was able to spend his last week with his boy.

Tks ntrog8r

I will look into it. Sounds promising and what we may be looking for as an option.

Distance is a concern for the gear but the troop has access to a couple of aircraft and a bus if the distance is to far.

You should look at btsr. Given your experience at this camp and being in Colorado you may enjoy the western style camp.

We are also doing philmont.

The group going to philmont is also expected to attend camp.

btsr is buffalo trails scout ranch in west Texas.

Thanks for the informative responses. I have ignored the condescending ones.

I want them in the same location. They can go camp w the high adv guys just in the same camp.

I am starting the process of searching for options for 2012, as just came back from BTSR yesterday. Great camp. Needs some tweaking, but overall well worth the miles to get there and the heat while there.

But, I am looking for maybe something a little cooler for next year.

My requirements are that the camp has

1.Trail to Eagle or trail to first class programs.

2. there are ample merit badge opportunities

3. adequate dining hall and latrine/shower facilities

4. high adventure programs for the older scouts, in a "residental type" program i.e.--the older guys leave base camp, spend the week with their mountain man or other type of program, returning to base camp at the end of the week. I want the high adventure activities to be at the same camp. I do not want them leaving the boundary of the camp the rest of the troop is in.

any ideas? I have looked at some, but the above requirements likely knock out many camps. For those of you familiar with BTSR, I am looking for a BTSR but in a cooler climate, i.e. colorado, midwest to upper midwest, etc.

Just to be clear, I dont know how to edit. I am not saying it is a cult, but, i am saying that you can certainly see why the issue is so sensitive.

I again, certainly understand what old ox is saying, and don't read anything into it.

"They need to cut the apron strings. They need to give their child breathing room and the chance to live their own lives. Boy Scouts (and by extension the OA) is NOT a parent-child program.

This is what several of us are saying. Stop and think first BEFORE demanding to be at that ceremony. We can't prevent you from being there. But please re-consider."

two comments. BSA brings some of this on themselves, i.e. multimillion dollar judgments for inappropriate activities of leaders and "secret" files.

second, the OA does still bar attendance. I know from personal experience. And, the ceremony is not really secret. You can find it, the brotherhood, etc. on the net.

So, given the fact that this ceremony has been, in some minds, linked to the masons, and some commentators disagree with the connotations of the religious overtones, or anti-established or catholic religions, it is not real shocking that some feel it is their right to take a 13 year old boy into a ceremony and not want parents around. While I certainly understand "old ox" meaning, if you took "old ox" comments out of this thread, you could likely put it straight into a discussion about cults.

"Seattle - Try looking at it this way: do we discourage parents from involving themselves in their sons' patrol functions? Do we discourage parents from permitting their scouts to miss meetings and camping trips? Do we discourage scouts from tenting with their parents?"

Totally different set of facts and circumstances. There is never a time, or at least there should never be a time, when you would encourage a parent not to be present during any of the above events. Encourage them to allow the boys to learn and do it on their own, sure. But, encourage a parent not to show up and be around when meetings, trips, patrol functions occur--NO WAY.

"Same train of thought for the OA ceremonies."

Exactly. Parent can be told to sit in the back, etc. but again, not encouraged not to be present. That is what this thread is about. It is about the OA encouraging parents to stay away, or, barring parents from attending. It is not about encouraging boys to learn on their own. It is about trying to set the stage for the boy to engage in a function where the OA wants parents kept out. All of this talk about encouraging parents to stay away is purely that--an attempt to keep parents out of the ceremony when there is no basis in the rules to do.

"No one is keeping secrets, or preventing a parent from having access to their child in either case."

Wrong--by actively advocating to the parent that the parent should not attend, you are actively taking steps that are contrary to the no closed ceremony rule. You are actively attempting to prohibit the parent from attending by any other means possible besides outight barring them from attending.

and, officially, this is a dead horse.

There is no provision in the rules that allow for a scout leader to explain and attempt to discourage attendance at any ceremony, event, etc.

You are reading this into the rule that it is allowed. The rule does not say parents can attend as a last resort. It says they can attend. It doesn't say they can attend if they insist on doing so. It says thay can attend.

Meet parents, explain where they can sit, and then shut up and do your thing. Doing anything else to discourage attendance is actually acting contrary to the rule. For example, you see a sign that says do not go down the hill. Is it ok if you just go halfway down the hill. The sign just said don't go down the hill, it did not say that you could not go down halfway and turn around.

From the current guide to safe scouting

No secret organizations. The Boy Scouts of America

does not recognize any secret organizations as part of its

program. All aspects of the Scouting program are open

to observation by parents and leaders.

That just about sums it up.

So, when my wife shows up for the ordeal ceremony, and is told to wait in the dining hall because the event is a mystery, the people broke their own rules. Looking at what E92 and others write, I can see there are numerous people who have decided that they know better than national with regards rules. Every post on this thread which seems to argue that there should be some discouragement of parents attending are flat out violating bsa rules. the question is then raised---what other bsa rules do you disregard.

And, yes, I have contacted everyone locally, and am in the process of contacting national. Anybody who does not follow the BSA rules shouold not be allowed in a position where that person would be required to enforce the rules. So, for all of you who indicate that you do the ceremony your way, and not the bsa way by having it open, without question and without intimidation to stay away, should be barred from being an active leader in bsa.

Op talked of an ugly experience in turning A PARENT AWAY. It is still happening, and the ugly experiences are caused not by OA, but by members who choose not to follow the rules, which in turn implicates the OA, which leads to the "cult" "mason" etc. references.

frankly, some of you are so out of it that it is no wonder that the OA has problems determining what is right and wrong.

If a parent wants to attend, the parent attends. PERIOD.

It is not up for discussion.

It should not be discouraged. The secrecy can be explained, and the parent can be requested to keep it a secret. But, the parent should not be encouraged, or placed in a position where they are made to feel unwelcome.

Most everybody here says no secret society, but, you talk contrary to that statement.

I don't care what you think the rule should be. The rule says parents attend. Stow the rest of the bs about how they should not. It is scouters like those who want to modify the rule that will get BSA and the OA into trouble.

the lawyer with the most paper wins.

really though, I honestly believe that juries see what is right and wrong. Do they get swayed by presentation, yes, but, presentation only goes so far. There must be some backup for it.

The Plaintiff's job is to inject emotion into the case. The defendant's job is to cut through the emotion, slow the process down a bit, and attempt to piece by piece convince the jury that the emotion is unfounded on the specific facts. Depending on how good or bad the facts are, determines which way the jury goes.

I also honestly believe that trials take place, for the most part, because one of the lawyers did not do his job. If the lawyer does his job, he can estimate, fairly clearly, what a jury will say. He will know what all the witnesses say and what all the documents reveal. If there is a case that the parties are far apart, you have a situation where someone is not looking at the facts correctly. there are, of course, exceptions.

I love it.

almost as bad as did you know there was a problem? yes. Did you know that the problem would effect the plaintiff? yes. did you tell the plaintiff to warn them? no. should you have? yes. If you did, would this have occurred? no.

Sit down, grab a drink of water, and pass the witness while the jury sits their shaking their head at the dummy on the stand

Eagle 007, bwahahahaha

As volunteers, we agree to follow the rules of bsa. this gives us some protection and should bring us under bsa insurance policies, but that does not mean bsa would be the exclusive party to look towards if something goes wrong. The following of bsa policies would simply be a defense against the personal liability. But, if we step outside of bsa policy, the question would become whether the stepping out was the cause of the incident. While there are immunities, they are not all encompassing, and can be broken. It all depends on the facts. I have gotten around a few in matters myself.

The potential for liability is likely the real reason behind many of the bsa changes, i.e. medical forms and weight limitations for adults, required training for leaders, etc. I fully expect bsa to institute a stronger ypt policy as well. It is what i would recommend if bsa was a client given the current state of abuse filings.

It is a common sense issue, but encompasses more than that. It is really a legal issue. But, everything we do has the potential for legal consequences. Boys swinging sticks--we tell them to stop, they continue, we tell them again, it continues, and a boy is injured. Was it negligent for us, as leaders, to fail to ensure that there were no sticks around to swing given the desire of the boys to swing the sticks? A very simple question, that most would say, no problems there, but, in my way of thinking, I say, yes, I could build a case there.

It is a societal thing, and, I agree that you cannot live your life in fear of being sued. You simply have to use best judgment, given the facts, with some idea that there is a line over which we cannot cross. That line, of course, is always moving.

I don't know much about the Florida case as I have not looked into it yet, but the question appears to be did the leaders know the boy was having difficulty on the hike, and should they have stopped. The issue may be was the leader ignoring warning signs, or was he simply attempting to encourage the boy to continue without an indication of a problem.

I love your comment about standing in the street though. So true.

Bummer. 7 years of school and 20 years of practice down the drain.

But I am not getting into a argument here. Lets just say we have a different view of the law and what standards would be applied.

Liability out there, yes. But that's why you have an umbrella policy. Being knowledgeable about your potential liabilities is a good thing. It allows you to adequately plan and prepare.

beavah--had not thought about local guys. good idea.

scoutfish - the husband is always wrong--at least in my household i am always wrong.

but, re: good samaritan laws, we are really not in a position where they apply. We are not good samaritans in the whole sense. we have taken on a duty, and, if we act in a way that causes harm, i believe negligence could be there given the right facts. Good samaritan is really designed for passers by. we do not fall into that catagory.

i agree that 1 on 1 is dangerous, both for bsa and the leader personally. liability exists whenever we take a troop out, both for abuse allegations, but also for negligence, i.e. the recent florida suit for making the boy walk to far. so, i was really just gathering info for the future in case the situation arrises.

This issue is something that came up on a webelos campout this weekend. I had three adults, and my son was the ill one, so I did not run into a ypt or 2 deep issue in leaving the campout to run him home, but it did raise an issue that I have been thinking about since. So, I have come up with a scenario, that I can see coming up.

A camp outing with the minimum 2 deep leadership, but, just 2 adults present.

One scout becomes ill and needs to leave the camp site, either to go to a doctor or to go home, and the adult leadership is not the ill scouts parent.

so, do you leave one adult with the camp, and one takes the ill scout.

or, do the two adults go with the ill scout, and leave the boys unattended.

My gut reaction would be to have one adult stay with the camp, where he will at least have the ability to be with multiple scouts, and not be one on one. Then, discuss the situation with the parents of the ill scout, advise what is going on, and take another scout with you, so there is not one adult and one scout together. If you are meeting the parents on the road for a hand off, or taking the boy all the way home, bring 2 scouts, so the return trip is not one on one.

of course, if you have only 4 boys, the issue becomes more difficult as you could run into a situation where you would have one adult and one scout.

Any thoughts, or experiences on how the issue has been handled.

Thanks for all the messages. BS-87-sorry the description was a bit vague in the op. That is not an issue I am aware of, thankfully.

But, to all, thank you for the reply. We had a great outing. Scout did great. Probably his best campout he has had. Others helped him, and he helped others. I could over analyze why he did so good w/o dad, but that may be some of it.

We opted the volunteer route. Our den chief stayed by himself, and we only had 4 boys this trip, with 3 adults the first night and two the second. The 4 paired up, 2 and 2, (which turned into a tent of 3) but, when we arrived at the campout, one of our 4 had an immediate change of health, sore throat, nauseaus, etc. ended up lying down in the back of the truck curled up on a pillow while the rest unloaded. I let him lay down for about an hour while everything was packed in and then had a decision to make. he had a pretty good fever just shy of 102, and given that it was a damp 40 degrees, I decided to run him back home. (one of my sons so no ypt probs there) Crawled into the den chief's tent(another son) around 4am, and woke to the sounds of clanging pots to start cooking a bit before 7. The sick scout incident though caused another scenario question, that I have posted in a new thread.

All in all, a great outing. A little cool, a little wet, and no issues.

But, again, thanks for the suggestions. It is always good to hear options.

I agree with seattle. Safety is first. It is my number one concern at all times. I also see Seattle point that dad should be there. This time he cannot and I am trying to make sure the scout attends as this is his last web campout but point taken. With regards the other scouts if I can say so I have a great bunch and I have seen nothing from the others that suggests they will leave because of this scout. I have one that likely will not cross to my troop but I think it is parent driven and where they live as opposed to scout issues.

Scoutfish

I agree. I want the peer to work but. Point well taken re forcing others to bunk. am Leary of it. dad is not going which is a blessing I.e. Scout experiences the trip on hisv own and a curse I.e. Hope my boot doesn't have to come into play on his rear......figure of speech.

Thomas

My scouts have been on there own for about a year so no probe there. This boy hangs with dad because of the boys decision but has once in a while bunked with a scout. We try to go minimum once a quarter and try for more. we would have a revolt to put them with dads now.

Thanks for the great comments. Always good to hear other perspectives

i think it is more of an outside the tent concern. and, there is a little history,whereas when he was a younger scout there were some physical incidents that occurred. While I think they were over the line, I have seen a change in him in the last several years. He has gotten better, but he does roughhouse more than the others, and, I believe it is not with malice. It is simply the boy acts without thought sometimes. he likes swinging sticks, and has some difficulty not picking them up again. he has used a stick on a tent which was not a good scene. But, he does understand "put it down" when told. I think the over anxious roughhousing at times and stick in a tent wall, etc. cause the others to say not in my tent. I will say, however, that I will not let him do something that will cause injury, etc. although the stick in the tent caught me by surprise. But, I do want him to learn through mistakes. A very fine line indeed.

Let me say, however, that I think scouting is good for this boy. He has changed. i also think its my job to try to keep him in scouting for the benefits he can get out of it, but, of course, not to the detriment of others. While i would like him to change more, i am glad that he has changed in the 4 years that i have been leader. If he did not have slip ups and did not have the history of his actions of a couple of years ago, I don't think there would be a problem. However, memories take a long time, and a lot of action to overcome. His occasional slip up doesn't help.

I know there are other good kids out there that go over the line, that people can see benefits of the program in them , and maybe have faced the same or similar situation before.

I am putting my webelos leader hat on here and taking my asm hat off for the moment.

I know how i would handle this as asm, but webelos i am not to sure.

we are having our last webelos patrol campout before crossing over, and have an even number of scouts going. we have one scout that is "active". He really is a good kid, but his past actions have caused the other scouts to not want to share a tent with him. It is not language, inappropriate comments etc. but is his active nature and sometimes short attention span that cause the other boys to run for cover and grab anyone else for bunking arrangements. Most times, he sleeps with his dad, but this time he will not be. In the boy scouts, i would just let the boys take care of it. I have had discussions with him, in an attempt to get him to see his actions and the results, but it is never a long lasting change. I also have parents who have gotten involved in indicating their desires for bunking arrangements. I am thinking of doing the same as I would with the boy scouts here, let the boys decide, and try to teach by peer (if you want to bunk with them, you need to modify) but in an effort to get some ideas I may not have thought of, and in an attempt not to negatively impact the scout this close to boy scouts, I post for comment.

I have looked at some of the other threads on this topic, but would like to get some thought on a couple of issues

does anybody enforce structure on the plc? by this i mean requiring that the plc follow a formal set of rules, i.e. roberts rules. I see that the plc is very inefficient, and becomes clickish to some extent. While attempting to keep the boy lead idea, what are your ideas on instituting rules for the plc to run by. I am sure that some will say that turns it into adult lead, but, if the rules would be instituted, wouldn't that be the means of making the plc more efficient and effective, and, teach the boys that meetings need to have structure. please feel free to flame away.

Finally, does anyone have designated asm's to work with the individual plc members for advise/guidance. I know this is close to the boy/adult line, but if you have a designated adult to work with the quartermaster, it seems that the asm (as long as the asm understands the role) would turn into a consultant. giving ideas and being a sounding board. Anybody have this set up, and how is it working.

thank you for the responses. I have gathered that it is not a mandate one way or the other.